Bard's Tale The Bard's Tale IV Pre-Release Thread [RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[IHaveHugeNick]

Is it really so bad if you create the rest of your party over the first few hours rather than immediately? Actually, I kind of like the idea of a gradually expanding blob.

I'm coming to terms with the idea myself. I've never played a party RPG that works this way before, but on paper it's not a basically wrong concept. It might even help with my usual syndrome where I make a party, play the game for a while, then realize I did it all wrong and have to start over.

I have a strict policy of no restarts. As a result my WL2 party consisted of 2 pistoleros , a shotgun wielder, and a melee guy with a knife and talky skills.

 

[CryptRat]

In a non-shit RPG you launch the game then make your whole party, always been that way. For retards they can add a default party like many games do.

Besides you can still tweak further, if you really don't like one of your character, you just replace it with a new created one.

 

[Zombra]

Always been that way.

"It's old" is insufficient reason to insist on a certain design - you have to show why it's superior.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Yeah full party creation used to be a standard, but it always sucked.

And the self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" who claim that full party creation doesn't suck, are the exactly the same people who after the launch will be whining that certain classes are underpowered or they will restart the save 5 times until they get a perfect party.

 

[Dorateen]

Making a whole party right after launching the game, in a completely unfamiliar system, is just silly.

RTFM

 

[V_K]

Always been that way.

"It's old" is insufficient reason to insist on a certain design - you have to show why it's superior.

Well, if the idea is to let the player learn the systems first, it makes much more sense to let him create a whole party and then if some of the original characters don't work swap them for new ones (or even just change classes). Because starting with one character, he'd only learn the systems specific to this character's class and would still have no idea of the other classes' worth.

 

[Zombra]

Well, if the idea is to let the player learn the systems first, it makes much more sense to let him create a whole party and then if some of the original characters don't work swap them for new ones (or even just change classes). Because starting with one character, he'd only learn the systems specific to this character's class and would still have no idea of the other classes' worth.

I disagree. Just the simple action of a one-on-one fight with a goblin for example will give the beginning player plenty of important information on how the system works, no matter what class he's using. Add another character for 2v2 and positioning and knockback become clear, and so forth. Then that will give him an idea what he wants his 3rd character to be to fill out the formation, et cetera until he's built his whole party. This may essentially eliminate the necessity to "guess and check" an entire party build I've experienced in most RPGs.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Making a whole party right after launching the game, in a completely unfamiliar system, is just silly.

RTFM

Eat salted monkey balls, dumbass.

All the manuals in the world don't tell you anything about the metagame, the balance, the power curves of each class, the synergies between the classes, the itemization, the list goes on. Dry description of mechanics isn't a substitute for learning the game as you go along, which is why you learn more about most RPGs in 10 minutes of playing them, than you do after an hour of navel gazing at the character screen.

 

[Dorateen]

I eat salted monkey balls, dumbass.

I can see why you are a fan of David Gaider's work.

 

[V_K]

Just the simple action of a one-on-one fight with a goblin for example will give the beginning player plenty of important information on how the system works, no matter what class he's using. Add another character for 2v2 and positioning and knockback become clear, and so forth. Then that will give him an idea what he wants his 3rd character to be to fill out the formation, et cetera until he's built his whole party.

Just think how mind-numbingly boring this extended tutorial would be on a second playthrough.
Speaking of tutorials, PoR2 isn't a game that receives too much praise, but having tutorial as a separate scenario with, IIRC, a premade party was a very right decision in that regard. Play through a short adventure, learn how stuff works and then go make your party - or safely skip it if it's your secong playthrough.

 

[Zombra]

Just think how mind-numbingly boring this extended tutorial would be on a second playthrough.

Shrug. Replaying any RPG is pretty repetitive. I like the idea of skipping the prologue and jumping straight to the Adventurers' Guild on a second playthrough though.

 

[aweigh]

IHaveHugeNick

I disagree with you on a fundamental level.

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

I don't get removing full party creation to satisfy people who think it's overwhelming. Any party based game needs to have you create the party at some point? One of the most satisfying parts of an rpg is rolling your characters and tweaking everything to be just so.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Nobody is saying to remove full party creation, just not to have it at the start. You can't tweak shit at the start, because you don't know anything about the game.

Starting with one guy (just not The One guy), introducing the mechanics and meeting the party later is a much better way to do this.

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

I really don't see how you get a good feel for mechanics in a party based game by playing solo, at least if the game is any good.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

You get a better feel for mechanics by playing solo than you get by staring at character creation.

 

[Zombra]

I really don't see how you get a good feel for mechanics in a party based game by playing solo, at least if the game is any good.

In a thousand ways. You learn basic stuff like how to move, how to attack, which is usually slightly different in every RPG. Example, in BT4 you can't hit a goblin with an axe chop unless your guy is in the same grid column. So from that you start to think about what types of "chess pieces" you want in your party: what mix of pawns, knights, and bishops? You get a feel for what % of hit points you're going to lose when a goblin hits you, which will inform how many "tanks" you need in the party. The manual isn't going to tell you "a goblin can kill your fighter in 3 hits". Do they one-hit kill? Do combats drag out over a dozen hits per monster? This will get you thinking about whether you want "alpha strike" characters, heal over time effects, low damage area attacks. You learn what cooldowns are and get a feel for which types of abilities might have longer or shorter ones. You can decide whether you want high power magic abilities with long cooldowns or fighters and rogues who can spam every turn. You learn whether or not fleeing from battle is a thing (in BT4 it's not) which might make you think twice about making lots of "glass cannon" characters. When you get your first magic-user you learn that spell points need to be charged up and they can't attack on the first round. So how many magic-users do you really want? You gain an understanding of how consumables work, or don't work. You learn there's no such thing as spamming healing potions which will inform your goals for support characters. You might meet your first Companion NPC and get a feel for how their mechanics are similar or different to how created PCs work. Et cetera for days.

I don't even know if I like the "growing blob" model yet but its benefits are obvious.

 

[Jimmious]

I guess we are discussing the whole issue only on a gameplay basis? Because there can be narrative reasons to support both choices.
For example in WL2 it makes sense to start with your squad

 

[aweigh]

This is how our principles get washed away. This is how ideals die.

 

[Jimmious]

This is your purgatory aweigh

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

I really don't see how you get a good feel for mechanics in a party based game by playing solo, at least if the game is any good.

In a thousand ways. You learn basic stuff like how to move, how to attack, which is usually slightly different in every RPG. Example, in BT4 you can't hit a goblin with an axe chop unless your guy is in the same grid column. So from that you start to think about what types of "chess pieces" you want in your party: what mix of pawns, knights, and bishops? You get a feel for what % of hit points you're going to lose when a goblin hits you, which will inform how many "tanks" you need in the party. Do they one-hit kill? Do combats drag out over a dozen hits per monster? This will get you thinking about whether you want "alpha strike" characters, heal over time effects, low damage area attacks. You learn what cooldowns are and get a feel for which types of abilities might have longer or shorter ones. You can decide whether you want high power magic abilities with long cooldowns or fighters and rogues who can spam every turn. You learn whether or not fleeing from battle is a thing (in BT4 it's not) which might make you think twice about making lots of "glass cannon" characters. When you get your first magic-user you learn that spell points need to be charged up and they can't attack on the first round. So how many magic-users do you really want? You gain an understanding of how consumables work, or don't work. You learn there's no such thing as spamming healing potions which will inform your goals for support characters. Et cetera for days.

I don't even know if I like the "growing blob" model yet but its benefits are obvious.

Except the traditional blobber is all about having every class have strengths and weakness. So an area designed for a character to solo is going to be piss easy and not give a representative of the overall game (hopefully.) How do you determine spellcasters you want in your party based on fighting rats with a bard, that are made to be beatable by a solo bard? Anyone who's played party based RPGs before has a general feel for how a balanced starting party should be constructed. Fuck, Bard's Tale traditionally lets you create new party members if you don't like your set up. The big problem is that this is the sort of crap that makes me feel the designers are embarrassed of blobber conventions, even though the are making a sequel to one of the most famous blobber series.

 

[V_K]

I really don't see how you get a good feel for mechanics in a party based game by playing solo, at least if the game is any good.

In a thousand ways. You learn basic stuff like how to move, how to attack, which is usually slightly different in every RPG. Example, in BT4 you can't hit a goblin with an axe chop unless your guy is in the same grid column. So from that you start to think about what types of "chess pieces" you want in your party: what mix of pawns, knights, and bishops? You get a feel for what % of hit points you're going to lose when a goblin hits you, which will inform how many "tanks" you need in the party. Do they one-hit kill? Do combats drag out over a dozen hits per monster? This will get you thinking about whether you want "alpha strike" characters, heal over time effects, low damage area attacks. You learn what cooldowns are and get a feel for which types of abilities might have longer or shorter ones. You can decide whether you want high power magic abilities with long cooldowns or fighters and rogues who can spam every turn. You learn whether or not fleeing from battle is a thing (in BT4 it's not) which might make you think twice about making lots of "glass cannon" characters. When you get your first magic-user you learn that spell points need to be charged up and they can't attack on the first round. So how many magic-users do you really want? You gain an understanding of how consumables work, or don't work. You learn there's no such thing as spamming healing potions which will inform your goals for support characters. Et cetera for days.

All this information should normally be available in a manual.

 

[Zombra]

Except the traditional blobber is all about having every class have strengths and weakness. So an area designed for a character to solo is going to be piss easy and not give a representative of the overall game (hopefully.)

Obviously a solo dungeon isn't going to teach you exactly how the rest of the game is going to go, but a hands-on introduction to basic mechanics is helpful for building your party. I'm speaking as an experienced RP gamer who always ends up remaking his party because reading the manual (and I do read manuals) is no substitute for experiencing the game.

All this information should normally be available in a manual.

What you're saying is that playing an RPG doesn't make you better at building a party if you already read the manual. I disagree. No manual is going to tell you that physical attacks are kinda better than magic spells for cleaning out grunts, or that knockback attacks are so common that even giant rats use them so having lots of archers that can shoot from anywhere will make things way more convenient. Or any of the other thousand tricks you learn that differentiate "good at the game" from "noob". If manuals were perfect then there would be no "party building guides", yet every CRPG seems to have several.

Also, just because you can teach people things by the written word instead of by demonstration doesn't mean you should. What's wrong with showing someone how the game works before forcing them to finalize their party build? I get it, in the old days games gave you a manual and threw you in the deep end ... but "it's old" is insufficient proof that something is better. Why are manuals superior to tutorials?

The big problem is that this is the sort of crap that makes me feel the designers are embarrassed of blobber conventions, even though the are making a sequel to one of the most famous blobber series.

No argument here. inXile clearly has no interest in making a sequel that's faithful to the gameplay of the originals - that's been clear since day one with their "Hearthstone-inspired" combat.

I wouldn't typify their attitude as "embarrassed", though. It's more like they saw a guy playing a blobber on TV once and thought, we'll make a game like that guy is playing.

 

[Dorateen]

The intellectual fallacy in all of this is, why are you forcing other players to start with just one character? Some of us veteran RP gamers don't need or want a handholding tutorial.

Developers who place arbitrary restrictions on party creation are morally ill.

 

[Zombra]

So forcing players to make characters one at a time is arbitrary, repressive tyranny, but forcing them to make the whole party at once is democratic, enlightened liberation. Got it.